'Pokemon Go' Makers Face Class Action Lawsuit For Trespassing

[Blitz Hacker]

Umm frivolous lawsuit. The judge should charge these people.. I understand it's 'annoying' but seriously. first off unless yer back yard is 10 acers or more they can get the pokemon from outside it. Secondly. 'footsteps' have been disabled.. making it completely unable to 'track pokemon' to a specific location. Aside from that this is a virtual world created using reference points. Atleast according to my recollection home owners do not have ownership of use of numbers and x, y, z cords. Grow up nerds.

 

[poochiepiano]

I think a class action lawsuit is a terrible way to go about it. They probably chose it for its ability to command Niantic's attention, but it's inappropriate. A cease and desist notice would probably suffice. The thing is, they don't need to do even that. Just opt out and your troubles are over. For that reason, it feels a little bit like a money-grab. I don't think the plaintiffs have much of a case, either, since Niantic did not place anything on their property and "enticing" someone to trespass is a huge leap that somehow absolves individual players of all responsibility and is therefore stupid.

Additionally, for all of you talking about Ingress already being around and how it's a money grab because they didn't complain back then, you're missing the fact that pokemon go is a massive game. Ingress didn't have nearly the amount of players so the nuisance is obviously going to increase. If someone knocked on your door once every few months, that's mildly irritating. If people did that 15 times per day, or worse, just straight-up waltzed in, that's absolutely a nuisance.

 

[maddogfargo]

Suit will fail.

1) Unless you have a NO TRESSPASSING sign clearly posted, it's not trespassing to come to your front door and ask the owner.

2) It is up to the individual player to be responsible for their actions. No different that if/when you were playing ball in the street and it bounced into a yard. You go ask the owner's permission to get it, or he would get it for you.

3) Developer isn't responsible for the actions of players.

4) For people who are genuinely trespassing, nobody is making you break the law.

5) Public areas are public, trespassing doesn't apply during normal business hours or when facilities are open.

These people are filing a frivolous lawsuit in hopes of a settlement to cash in on a profitable craze. Their problem isn't with the developer, it's with the ill-behaved kids in their neighborhood and their families. Period.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Where is the evidence that they are encouraging people to trespass by assigning stuff to private property? Who says they aren't encouraging people to ask for permission to enter property? Niantic's has not verbally encouraged trespassing. Them "encouraging" it is your own interpretation NeilBlake and not something that can be solidified with proof and held up in the court of law.

Of there is a newspaper article about some private museum and how great is, and a bunch of people trespass and break into it the next day, did that newspaper encourage people to trespass and break in? Is it the newspaoer's fault? The only thing Pokemon go does is bring to light the REAL issues which is people and their poor choices.

They're not directly saying, "Hey, go jump somebody's fence to catch that Snorlax." The game itself explicitly states the opposite and obvious, to pay attention to surroundings and NOT trespass. But you can't discount human psychology. The nature of the gameplay, coupled with millions of younger (and some not-so-young) players with still-developing or underdeveloped senses of boundaries, and you get nuisance PokeGO players chasing Mons where they shouldn't be.

As stated before, Stops and Gyms are placed based on Ingress locations. The Mons themselves, though, can show up basically anywhere. So if you don't want them appearing somewhere in particular, that area has to be specifically excluded as a spawn zone. There's only so far you can get doing that algorithmically (that's a word, right?). And is there a mechanism to even do that? Deleting a Stop or Gym is easy. Blocking off a section of land, especially if it has to be done manually, is probably labor-prohibitive, given the possibly very large numbers of requests that could come.

Some posts have been talking about catching pixels like that makes the draw less relevant, but that misunderstands the reward system in the brain. It's pretty much the psychological equivalant of Niantic releasing Cake Go, where they drop slices of cake (or pie, chocolate, New York strip, or something else nominally delicious) randomly across the world, and then saying, "But don't bug private property owners about it." And then giving you points for eating the most different kinds of cake. The analogy breaks down a bit if you don't assume that the owners can't remove or eat the cake themselves, of course. People SHOULD heed that warning, but will they? Most, but not all. Niantic bears some responsibility for that. How much is up to the legal system. A class-action suit is a pretty bit stick to hit someone with, but as a property owner, I absolutely understand the desire to have something happen to resolve my issues right-damn-now.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Suit will fail.

1) Unless you have a NO TRESSPASSING sign clearly posted, it's not trespassing to come to your front door and ask the owner.

2) It is up to the individual player to be responsible for their actions. No different that if/when you were playing ball in the street and it bounced into a yard. You go ask the owner's permission to get it, or he would get it for you.

3) Developer isn't responsible for the actions of players.

4) For people who are genuinely trespassing, nobody is making you break the law.

5) Public areas are public, trespassing doesn't apply during normal business hours or when facilities are open.

These people are filing a frivolous lawsuit in hopes of a settlement to cash in on a profitable craze. Their problem isn't with the developer, it's with the ill-behaved kids in their neighborhood and their families. Period.

It will probably settle out of court.

1) Sort of. Sign or no, you can't disallow approach to your front door. This may vary by municipality.

2) True. This is exactly what's happening in most cases.

3) True, but see my post above. The mechanics indirectly encourage such actions.

4) Also true. See 3).

5) True.

I disagree with the cash grab conclusion. On the part of the lawyers, sure. They get a cut of the judgment or settlement. But the plaintiffs, in large part, probably just want to be left alone, and they should have that right.

 

[ingtar33]

i don't see how this lawsuit will get off the ground floor. in order to have a civil suit you need to be able to prove loss.

having a couple of people show up on your street or behind your property, or knock on your door doesn't constitute loss. The only possible "loser" in this case would be a business that is seeing an increase in foot traffic without an increase in business. Even then it would be hard to prove to be causing a loss in business.

sounds like a lawyer looking to make a killing (those 33% contingency fees are a killer)

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Who says encouraging trespassing is against the law? I can go outside with a "Hey everybody! Let's go trespassing on people's property" sign and I'm not doing anything illegal.

I also know a lawyer and asked him about it. He basically said that it seems right that there's no way they are going to win in this lawsuit over Niantic.

 

[TJ Hooker]

I also know a lawyer and asked him about it. He basically said that it seems right that there's no way they are going to win in this lawsuit over Niantic.

That's the thing about the law though, it has to be interpreted. Your lawyer friend says not a chance, but obviously the lawyer(s) behind the suit think otherwise.

 

[NeilBlake]

Where is the evidence that they are encouraging people to trespass by assigning stuff to private property? Who says they aren't encouraging people to ask for permission to enter property? Niantic's has not verbally encouraged trespassing. Them "encouraging" it is your own interpretation NeilBlake and not something that can be solidified with proof and held up in the court of law.

Of there is a newspaper article about some private museum and how great is, and a bunch of people trespass and break into it the next day, did that newspaper encourage people to trespass and break in? Is it the newspaoer's fault? The only thing Pokemon go does is bring to light the REAL issues which is people and their poor choices.

The evidence is the game itself. Did you not read the very article you are commenting on?
"Due to the randomized placement of the Pokemon, Pokestops and Pokemon Gyms, they have turned up in some unwanted locations such as in houses, cemeteries and museums. According to Jeffrey Marder, a man living in New Jersey, he received at least five unwelcome visitors that wanted access to his backyard to catch Pokemon within the first week of the game’s launch."

The game should not be placing Pokémon on private property. And if Niantic is not aware that this placement is being done, then they do not have the proper verification in place like they should because they are responsible for where their games show Pokémon being. Yes, individuals should know better than to ring the doorbell of private homes or to not go into cemeteries to chase pixels, but that doesn't absolve Niantic of their responsibility.

 

[NeilBlake]

So... I can sue Google Maps for trespassing on my property, no?

What does Google Maps place on y our property that encourages people to go an "capture"?

 

[hitman400]

People refuting this whole ordeal the argument that Ingress has been out for 6 years and no one complained are lacking the bigger picture. One poster even mentioned that it wasn't popular; it was even a game no one knew about. So basically, the chances of someone invading your property are significantly less...since no one knew about the game.

The game is the equivalent to a giant crane looming over your backyard dangling a carrot. People backing up Niantic in regards to people having a choice to invade property or not are either: Pokemon Go addicts themselves or do not consider the implications. What if I went on the internet right now and alerted the interwebz to a users address stating there is free popcorn in this location? I'm sure no one would like a flock of seagulls at their house.

 

[tntom]

Sport Hunting. If a game animal you are hunting crosses over onto property you do not own and is clearly posted with "No Trespassing" signs, and you pursue it, the individual is trespassing and pouching(virtual/cyber pouching).
Each person is an individual free agent who does not work for the gaming company.

 

[wiyosaya]

I am not buying the opt-out argument. Vote me down if you like, but having to opt-out of people visiting your property for no reason other than to catch a virtual character is, as I see it, the same as having to opt-out of spam or any other sort of marketing. Typically, opting out means revealing that your whatever it is is active and real and a potential target for more of whatever it is you are opting out from. How many more things do we need to opt-out of before opt-in is the default rather than opt-out?

Also, yes, there are still people out there who are not tech savvy and to whom it would be a burden to opt-out. This being a techie site, we are used to techie solutions; however, not everyone is - yes - still in this day and age.

Having to post "no trespassing" signs on your property to keep players out is also something that I do not think needs to be done, however, property owners could do so.

I agree with the posts that say that locations for the characters should be kept in public locations. Public locations are fair game but not the private property of home owners. There was even a stupid location on a military base. WTF???

 

[coolitic]

I don't need to opt-out of this.

This is something that should have to be opted-IN for.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Sport Hunting. If a game animal you are hunting crosses over onto property you do not own and is clearly posted with "No Trespassing" signs, and you pursue it, the individual is trespassing and pouching(virtual/cyber pouching).
Each person is an individual free agent who does not work for the gaming company.

For sure. Now let's take your example a bit further and call this part of a larger trophy hunt. The sponsors have placed the animals and there are prizes for most or largest brought in. We'll give the organizers the benefit of the doubt and say that no animals have been placed on property that has not granted consent. But it's not as if the animals will stay there. We'll call this the random element of Pokemon spawning. The organizers will have specified that animals are only allowed to be taken on approved property, but can all participants be expected to comply, especially with prizes and competition on the line? Individual hunters are responsible for any trespass or illegal kills, but the sponsors could be considered complicit in their actions by creating a situation in which participants are incentivized to breach the rules and/or law.

We've been throwing around the word "trespass" around a lot here, and I think that's muddying the waters, since that seems to be an edge case. What's happening is people having their quality of life affected by the actions of an entity outside their influence, over whom they have no obvious recourse. A civil suit may not be the most polite reaction, but it's among the most likely to get results.

Now, one should also grant some sympathy to Niantic, who I'm certain never wanted things like this to happen, and was probably scrambling to figure out a fix even before suit was brought.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

What's happening is people having their quality of life affected by the actions of an entity outside their influence, over whom they have no obvious recourse. A civil suit may not be the most polite reaction, but it's among the most likely to get results.

Not everyone is happy with everything in life. Sometimes they just have to suck it up.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

What's happening is people having their quality of life affected by the actions of an entity outside their influence, over whom they have no obvious recourse. A civil suit may not be the most polite reaction, but it's among the most likely to get results.

Not everyone is happy with everything in life. Sometimes they just have to suck it up.

You're right, they may lose. But to say that they shouldn't even try is absurd.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

What's happening is people having their quality of life affected by the actions of an entity outside their influence, over whom they have no obvious recourse. A civil suit may not be the most polite reaction, but it's among the most likely to get results.

Not everyone is happy with everything in life. Sometimes they just have to suck it up.

You're right, they may lose. But to say that they shouldn't even try is absurd.

Now if people were actually smart they would sue cheap PSU companies with dangerous units. That would be easy money into all the lawyer's pockets. It's just that they don't look for the right opportunities since most of them don't really know what a PSU is. But take something like Pokemon Go that draws their attention because it's all in the news, now they are interested. But realistically there are so many better cases they can bring against other companies and would for sure win, whereas in this particular battle there is very little chance they'll win because Niantic is not breaking any laws. Nor can Niantic's intentions be proven anyway.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

What's happening is people having their quality of life affected by the actions of an entity outside their influence, over whom they have no obvious recourse. A civil suit may not be the most polite reaction, but it's among the most likely to get results.

Not everyone is happy with everything in life. Sometimes they just have to suck it up.

You're right, they may lose. But to say that they shouldn't even try is absurd.

Now if people were actually smart they would sue cheap PSU companies with dangerous units. That would be easy money into all the lawyer's pockets. It's just that they don't look for the right opportunities since most of them don't really know what a PSU is. But take something like Pokemon Go that draws their attention because it's all in the news, now they are interested. But realistically there are so many better cases they can bring against other companies and would for sure win, whereas in this particular battle there is very little chance they'll win because Niantic is not breaking any laws. Nor can Niantic's intentions be proven anyway.

You keep coming back to the lawyers. They're ancillary in all of this. Here's what's important to the plaintiffs, copy-pasted from the article:

“At common law, an invasion of one’s use and enjoyment of their land, if repeated or of long duration, constitutes a nuisance. The foregoing conduct has resulted in foreseeable incursions by Pokémon Go players onto the property of Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class, thereby invading their use and enjoyment of their properties."

The first player to knock on your door is cute. The second, less so. By the fifth and beyond, you just want them to go away. The individual players don't need to be acting illegally or even be at fault for the suit to have potential merit.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Yes the people are the nuisance. Not Niantic. Is Niantic remotely controlling their feet and making them walk onto people's property?

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Yes the people are the nuisance. Not Niantic. Is Niantic remotely controlling their feet and making them walk onto people's property?

Yes.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Yes the people are the nuisance. Not Niantic. Is Niantic remotely controlling their feet and making them walk onto people's property?

Yes.

And that's something that will not win over in court. If the lawyer's argument is that Niantic is forcing children to trespass, they can say goodbye to their money. Only that individual's mind has control over his/her nervous system which initiates the muscles to move the body onto private property. What Niantic has done is provide a product. How people use it is the responsibility of their own part. Niantic is not held accountable for people's illegal behaviors. It's like if someone gets stabbed by a pen. Not the pen company's fault. If someone trespasses into a museum and steals a painting after a newspaper write up about how phenomenal the painting is. Not the newspaper's fault.

If people are not happy with it they should call the cops on the trespassing people and address the manner in that way.

 

[wiyosaya]

Here is an interesting article about the fact that there are many Pokemon Go items in the Toronto Ferry Terminal. http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20160803/39fc5c43-a48e-401e-875f-3c7dbdaf199e

I think it interesting from the standpoint that it is a public place, and even so, it is causing trouble.

Also, the article notes that if you request removal from the game of a place, it is not automatic - further evidence, IMO, that opting out is not the way to go.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yes the people are the nuisance. Not Niantic. Is Niantic remotely controlling their feet and making them walk onto people's property?

Yes.

And that's something that will not win over in court. If the lawyer's argument is that Niantic is forcing children to trespass, they can say goodbye to their money. Only that individual's mind has control over his/her nervous system which initiates the muscles to move the body onto private property. What Niantic has done is provide a product. How people use it is the responsibility of their own part. Niantic is not held accountable for people's illegal behaviors. It's like if someone gets stabbed by a pen. Not the pen company's fault. If someone trespasses into a museum and steals a painting after a newspaper write up about how phenomenal the painting is. Not the newspaper's fault.

If people are not happy with it they should call the cops on the trespassing people and address the manner in that way.

Check this out - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting

 

[synphul]

It's definitely creating a nuisance for many people. I think many will be happy to see the fad fizzle out. Not a real problem out where I live since it's a more rural area but then out in this neck of the woods trespassers know better. They won't get a bunch of whining from farmers and ranchers, they'll just get a load of rock salt in their rump - if they're lucky. lmao. Wonder if they like playing pokemon ouch or pokemon go the hell home. 😛